Research Question: How does the federal government effect school funding and programs? Contributed by: Greg Horowitz
Editorial:
This first article is entitled Election 2004- Education and No Child Left Behind. This article recounts the recent growing financial involvement that the federal government has had in the area of education. The article credits the Lyndon Johnson administration, back in 1965, for the federal governments heavy involvement in the countries public education. In 1965, as part of former President Johnson's "war on Poverty", the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. What this act was designed to do was to give financial assistance to underprivileged children. Ever since this Act was passed, the government has grown highly involved in public education. But as involved as we become; the government, separated as Democrats and Republicans, have held different political stances on our involvement and how we should approach it. Starting in 1981, led by the administration of former President Reagan, the Republican party has been against federal involvement in public education from all aspects. In 1981, former President Reagan attempted to due away with the Department of Education, but failed. In 1996, the Republican Election Platform stated that, "the Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education." This anti-involvement platform has been a staple for the Republicans until George W. Bush became president. President Bush has introduced and acted upon a new law called the No Child Left Behind Act. What this law does is, that it sets benchmarks and standards that schools are required to meet. The law also encourages the hiring of services for disadvantaged children and children with special needs. The law has grown to such lengths that Title 1 spending, spending aimed at disadvantaged children, has grown 41% or 12.3 million dollars, since the Act has been put in place. This act has been under attack by the democrats, from a financial aspect. The democrats, headed by former Presidential candidate John Kerry, have argued that these demands, made by the No Child Left Behind Act, are unrealistic. The democrats argue that these demands placed upon school districts come with no financial backing. Without this financial backing, these school districts and the states who fund them, will be forced to change their financial actions and scramble for financial iniative. The democrats have made numerous proposals to 'even out' the financial requirements that come with the No Child Left Behind Act. The main proposal is based around the idea of a pay raise for teachers. This proposal would cost the Federal Government billions of dollars. The democrats argue that with the overcrowding of classrooms, lack of suitable teaching materials, and "high-quality tests" have left many kids behind. As John Kerry said in his speech to the American Federation of Teachers, "...It's time to fully fund No Child Left Behind." Republicans also have shown opposition towards the No Child Left Behind Act. The legislatures in Virgina and Utah, both are largely republican legislatures, have been asked to be exempt from the No Child Left Behind Act. They have requested this because they feel that the Act is to much of an intrusion into public education, which is a state function. Many feel that the federal government is overstepping its bounds, largely in a financial way.
The No Child Left Behind Act has its heart in the right place, but is completely out of line. First of all, it is important to remember the public education is mainly the states responsibility. What the federal government is asking is out of line, and an over-extension of what their responsibilities are. To demand that the states change their plans and test is an over-extension of the federal power. It is the states responsibility to choose what these plans and tests are, and no one else. The second problem I have with this act is the financial implications. The federal government, without extra funding, isn't helping these states and individual school districts with their problems, only complicating. They should be free to spend their money as they please and the government should only be allowed to impose these changes unless they are willing and able to back them up financially and morally. I am not a fan of the No Child Left Behind Act, but it seems that I am not alone.
Gale, T (2005). Election 2004-Education and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from Galegroup
Opinion:
This article is from USA Today, and it is called "More Spending is not Answer." The article argues that this constant fighting over educational spending isnt helping, but only hurting the kids who attend schools today. We shouldn't worry about how much of our money we spend, but only about how we spend that money. Since 1965, the government has spent 321 billion dollars on educational programs. Even more so, in every year government spending on schools (grade K-12) has been over 400 billion dollars. But where has this money gotten us? Over the last two decades, the fact that 3/4ths of 4th graders cannot read proficiently. Recent polls have shown that 66% of Americans believe that high standards and accountability is more important to schools than high funding and lots of money. Even as many of the states have been facing financial challenges in recent years due to tax hikes, limited economic growth, and the growth of the federal government, with help from the government it can all be fixed. The No Child Left Behind Act has introduced a new set of priorities to the educational scene. Even though financing is a key ingredient, accountability and standards are the main keys, finances are just a small part of it.
This article makes alot of sense. It pushes us away from finances and back to reality. No matter how much money is spent, it doesnt make for a perfect world. Money doesnt teach kids to read, write, or do arithmatic. Money can help us hire teachers and make programs that can help kids learn but that is only a part. We need to take the money and spend it wisely so that these kids will have an opportunity to learn, and we will have a plan for the future. For all the things that have said to be wrong with the No Child Left Behind Act, the article raises a good point. The Act introduces a new set of priorities and goals. This isn't about financial wealth, this is about moral wealth. To spend money is nice, but if it doesnt help us achieve our goals then their is no point to it.
Analysis Article from NY Times:
The title of this article, from the New York Times, is "Federal Spending Increases, but more Schools will get More Money for Low-Income Students." The article begins by explaining to us that with Title 1 spending, government spending that goes to children who are disadvantaged, the amount has been raised to 12.6 million dollars. But the number of dollars a district will recieve isnt guarenteed. Many school-districts are finding that their government grants are shrinking due to "population shifts." The article gives examples such as immigration influx, affordable-housing, and richer people moving to the suburbs. A total of 8,843 school districts will see their government grants shrink due to the changing of their student population. Though this is a large number of schools will be cut out, it isn't a surprise. The year before, it was found out that 55% of the schools elgiable recieved a cut in grants, this years amount is only added on. But how they figure out these percentages is very questionable. They figure it out through a"formula." These formulas figure out the money through "per-student spending" instead of the overall amount. The high poverity areas will get more money per student, then the low poverty areas will. The only way to recieve a grant increase is by recording that over 5% of your children come from 'low-income' families. Even as the money is being distributed, it is causing schools to struggle to meet standards and benchmarks. The No Child Left Behind Act has forced these schools to change their way of going about their activities, and are now forced to find extra money to invest in the activities that the Act requries. Many schools, used as an example in the article is Conejo Valley Unified School District. The school had to cut many programs, even those required by No Child Left Behind Act, to keep up the neccessities of the school. Even with the troubles of most school districts, it seems that school districts in cities are having no trouble showing that over 5% of their students come from 'low-income' families, so they are recieving the funding. Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York lead the list, having gained major grants from the federal government. In fact, it says that 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have been granted increases by the government. Even as the money is being distributed, it is not being distributed fairly.
The idea of the government funding is a good one. The fact that government is making a legitimate effort to get involved and help raise the educational opportunities for a lot of kids is very admirable. But the main problem is that they are thinking short-sightedly. They are thinking in terms of the many and not the few. They are thinking about how they can help most of the kids, but what they are missing is that their is enough funds to help all of the kids. The system of deciding how much of the funds go's where needs to overholed and a brand new system brought in. I do not like the idea of giving money per student, and not by an overall count. Their is great potential to help so many kids but a new image, new ideas, and a new insight needs to be developed. The government has come so far, committing so much money to kids who need the help. This amount of money is admirable but not enough. Lets help all the kids with a little less, not less with more.
Janofsky, M (2005). Federal Spending Increases, but More Schools Will Get Less Money for Low-Income Students . Retrieved November 27, 2007, from New York Times Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/education/04title.html
Summary Article (Found on ERIC Digest, and was directed to another website)
This article is called, 50 Years After Sputnik. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik fifty years ago, the US Government went into a frenzy and started spending majorly on college universities and programs, investing heavily into science and math programs at the higher levels. This was fifty years ago, our problem now is that the rest of the world is surpassing us economically in the production of economically based goods, especially China. The federal government has responded to this 'crisis' as well, but in a different way. Fifty years ago, they went into a frenzy spending money on science programs to compete as soon as possible. After Sputnik, the amount of doctoral degrees in the United States went from 8,611 in 1957 to 33,755 in 1973. The Federal Government has passed an America Competes Act. What this act will do is double spending on physical science studies every seven years, even though the act is due to expire after three years. Even though it is only 3 years, the 2 billion dollars will be spent on the bill during those years. This number falls well short of the 7 million (converted into modern dollars due to inflation) spent after Sputnik was launched. The money will not be provided by the government but by National Science Foundation and the Energy Department. As the spending after Sputnik consentrated on high levels of education, the America Competes Act pushes for better-qualified science teachers in elemetary and secondary school levels. The democrat-controlled congress has promised to expand the act, thus finding money that can be spent on the issue by the federal government. The congress is trying to find this money, for thier is urgency. Roughly half of China's undergraduate degrees come in natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering, compared with about 15 percent in the US. Also, from ages 20-24, the chinese have five times the amount of Americans who attend college. American High Seniors have scored near the bottom in International Science tests. Their is urgency, but this isnt Sputnik, and the government doesnt think it is either.
This article clearly reminds us again how much the government truly affects our educations. Our educations are designed based on the world around us, and in the years to came we're going to see the educational system lean towards science and math in an attempt to keep pace with the rest of the world. The other major nations of the world are leaning towards science and math to increase their technology and overall abilities, now the plan is to keep pace with them. Our educational system is going to be redesigned to keep up with the rest of the world. This isnt a bad idea. It's important, in these uncertain times, to keep pace with the rest of the world and to make sure another country can't catch us not looking. It's time for us to keep vigilant and remain at a steady pace with the rest of the world, to reassure that we are on even footing.
Scholarly Journal:
The US Congress has freed up 43.3 billion dollars to be used for science and scientific education courses. The main idea behind this action is to keep the United States competitive in the global economy for years to come. The main topics for this spending will be math, science, engineering, technology education, and a "renewed commitment to basic research." Prior to this agreement, their was a sense of fighting over where to spend funding dollars. This agreement is essentially a compromise between the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Education. A great part of this compromise, is reassuring that highschool math and science teachers are certified. In 2002, 17 to 28 percent of public high school mathematics and science teachers lacked full certification in their field. In 1999, between 23 and 29 percent of public middle- and high-school mathematics and science teachers did not have a college major or minor in their teaching field, so making sure that our teachers were certified was a great cause for passing this money into funding. With this in mind, the money that has just passed into legislation includes two teacher scholorship programs. All of this will go to reassuring the security of our American Educational System.
Whenever you have the opportunity to reassure our education system and advance our cause of learning and educational commitment, its a good thing. I have no problem with this spending, amount or destination. It's a good cause and the fact that it is coming from our government is a good thing. Maybe this spending is to divert our attention from the war for a second or to allow themselves to be shown in a better light, but regardless it is a good thing. I fully support it.
Contributed by: Greg Horowitz
Editorial:
This first article is entitled Election 2004- Education and No Child Left Behind. This article recounts the recent growing financial involvement that the federal government has had in the area of education. The article credits the Lyndon Johnson administration, back in 1965, for the federal governments heavy involvement in the countries public education. In 1965, as part of former President Johnson's "war on Poverty", the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. What this act was designed to do was to give financial assistance to underprivileged children. Ever since this Act was passed, the government has grown highly involved in public education. But as involved as we become; the government, separated as Democrats and Republicans, have held different political stances on our involvement and how we should approach it. Starting in 1981, led by the administration of former President Reagan, the Republican party has been against federal involvement in public education from all aspects. In 1981, former President Reagan attempted to due away with the Department of Education, but failed. In 1996, the Republican Election Platform stated that, "the Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education." This anti-involvement platform has been a staple for the Republicans until George W. Bush became president. President Bush has introduced and acted upon a new law called the No Child Left Behind Act. What this law does is, that it sets benchmarks and standards that schools are required to meet. The law also encourages the hiring of services for disadvantaged children and children with special needs. The law has grown to such lengths that Title 1 spending, spending aimed at disadvantaged children, has grown 41% or 12.3 million dollars, since the Act has been put in place. This act has been under attack by the democrats, from a financial aspect. The democrats, headed by former Presidential candidate John Kerry, have argued that these demands, made by the No Child Left Behind Act, are unrealistic. The democrats argue that these demands placed upon school districts come with no financial backing. Without this financial backing, these school districts and the states who fund them, will be forced to change their financial actions and scramble for financial iniative. The democrats have made numerous proposals to 'even out' the financial requirements that come with the No Child Left Behind Act. The main proposal is based around the idea of a pay raise for teachers. This proposal would cost the Federal Government billions of dollars. The democrats argue that with the overcrowding of classrooms, lack of suitable teaching materials, and "high-quality tests" have left many kids behind. As John Kerry said in his speech to the American Federation of Teachers, "...It's time to fully fund No Child Left Behind." Republicans also have shown opposition towards the No Child Left Behind Act. The legislatures in Virgina and Utah, both are largely republican legislatures, have been asked to be exempt from the No Child Left Behind Act. They have requested this because they feel that the Act is to much of an intrusion into public education, which is a state function. Many feel that the federal government is overstepping its bounds, largely in a financial way.
The No Child Left Behind Act has its heart in the right place, but is completely out of line. First of all, it is important to remember the public education is mainly the states responsibility. What the federal government is asking is out of line, and an over-extension of what their responsibilities are. To demand that the states change their plans and test is an over-extension of the federal power. It is the states responsibility to choose what these plans and tests are, and no one else. The second problem I have with this act is the financial implications. The federal government, without extra funding, isn't helping these states and individual school districts with their problems, only complicating. They should be free to spend their money as they please and the government should only be allowed to impose these changes unless they are willing and able to back them up financially and morally. I am not a fan of the No Child Left Behind Act, but it seems that I am not alone.
Gale, T (2005). Election 2004-Education and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from Galegroup
Opinion:
This article is from USA Today, and it is called "More Spending is not Answer." The article argues that this constant fighting over educational spending isnt helping, but only hurting the kids who attend schools today. We shouldn't worry about how much of our money we spend, but only about how we spend that money. Since 1965, the government has spent 321 billion dollars on educational programs. Even more so, in every year government spending on schools (grade K-12) has been over 400 billion dollars. But where has this money gotten us? Over the last two decades, the fact that 3/4ths of 4th graders cannot read proficiently. Recent polls have shown that 66% of Americans believe that high standards and accountability is more important to schools than high funding and lots of money. Even as many of the states have been facing financial challenges in recent years due to tax hikes, limited economic growth, and the growth of the federal government, with help from the government it can all be fixed. The No Child Left Behind Act has introduced a new set of priorities to the educational scene. Even though financing is a key ingredient, accountability and standards are the main keys, finances are just a small part of it.
This article makes alot of sense. It pushes us away from finances and back to reality. No matter how much money is spent, it doesnt make for a perfect world. Money doesnt teach kids to read, write, or do arithmatic. Money can help us hire teachers and make programs that can help kids learn but that is only a part. We need to take the money and spend it wisely so that these kids will have an opportunity to learn, and we will have a plan for the future. For all the things that have said to be wrong with the No Child Left Behind Act, the article raises a good point. The Act introduces a new set of priorities and goals. This isn't about financial wealth, this is about moral wealth. To spend money is nice, but if it doesnt help us achieve our goals then their is no point to it.
Analysis Article from NY Times:
The title of this article, from the New York Times, is "Federal Spending Increases, but more Schools will get More Money for Low-Income Students." The article begins by explaining to us that with Title 1 spending, government spending that goes to children who are disadvantaged, the amount has been raised to 12.6 million dollars. But the number of dollars a district will recieve isnt guarenteed. Many school-districts are finding that their government grants are shrinking due to "population shifts." The article gives examples such as immigration influx, affordable-housing, and richer people moving to the suburbs. A total of 8,843 school districts will see their government grants shrink due to the changing of their student population. Though this is a large number of schools will be cut out, it isn't a surprise. The year before, it was found out that 55% of the schools elgiable recieved a cut in grants, this years amount is only added on. But how they figure out these percentages is very questionable. They figure it out through a"formula." These formulas figure out the money through "per-student spending" instead of the overall amount. The high poverity areas will get more money per student, then the low poverty areas will. The only way to recieve a grant increase is by recording that over 5% of your children come from 'low-income' families. Even as the money is being distributed, it is causing schools to struggle to meet standards and benchmarks. The No Child Left Behind Act has forced these schools to change their way of going about their activities, and are now forced to find extra money to invest in the activities that the Act requries. Many schools, used as an example in the article is Conejo Valley Unified School District. The school had to cut many programs, even those required by No Child Left Behind Act, to keep up the neccessities of the school. Even with the troubles of most school districts, it seems that school districts in cities are having no trouble showing that over 5% of their students come from 'low-income' families, so they are recieving the funding. Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York lead the list, having gained major grants from the federal government. In fact, it says that 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have been granted increases by the government. Even as the money is being distributed, it is not being distributed fairly.
The idea of the government funding is a good one. The fact that government is making a legitimate effort to get involved and help raise the educational opportunities for a lot of kids is very admirable. But the main problem is that they are thinking short-sightedly. They are thinking in terms of the many and not the few. They are thinking about how they can help most of the kids, but what they are missing is that their is enough funds to help all of the kids. The system of deciding how much of the funds go's where needs to overholed and a brand new system brought in. I do not like the idea of giving money per student, and not by an overall count. Their is great potential to help so many kids but a new image, new ideas, and a new insight needs to be developed. The government has come so far, committing so much money to kids who need the help. This amount of money is admirable but not enough. Lets help all the kids with a little less, not less with more.
Summary Article (Found on ERIC Digest, and was directed to another website)
This article is called, 50 Years After Sputnik. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik fifty years ago, the US Government went into a frenzy and started spending majorly on college universities and programs, investing heavily into science and math programs at the higher levels. This was fifty years ago, our problem now is that the rest of the world is surpassing us economically in the production of economically based goods, especially China. The federal government has responded to this 'crisis' as well, but in a different way. Fifty years ago, they went into a frenzy spending money on science programs to compete as soon as possible. After Sputnik, the amount of doctoral degrees in the United States went from 8,611 in 1957 to 33,755 in 1973. The Federal Government has passed an America Competes Act. What this act will do is double spending on physical science studies every seven years, even though the act is due to expire after three years. Even though it is only 3 years, the 2 billion dollars will be spent on the bill during those years. This number falls well short of the 7 million (converted into modern dollars due to inflation) spent after Sputnik was launched. The money will not be provided by the government but by National Science Foundation and the Energy Department. As the spending after Sputnik consentrated on high levels of education, the America Competes Act pushes for better-qualified science teachers in elemetary and secondary school levels. The democrat-controlled congress has promised to expand the act, thus finding money that can be spent on the issue by the federal government. The congress is trying to find this money, for thier is urgency. Roughly half of China's undergraduate degrees come in natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering, compared with about 15 percent in the US. Also, from ages 20-24, the chinese have five times the amount of Americans who attend college. American High Seniors have scored near the bottom in International Science tests. Their is urgency, but this isnt Sputnik, and the government doesnt think it is either.
This article clearly reminds us again how much the government truly affects our educations. Our educations are designed based on the world around us, and in the years to came we're going to see the educational system lean towards science and math in an attempt to keep pace with the rest of the world. The other major nations of the world are leaning towards science and math to increase their technology and overall abilities, now the plan is to keep pace with them. Our educational system is going to be redesigned to keep up with the rest of the world. This isnt a bad idea. It's important, in these uncertain times, to keep pace with the rest of the world and to make sure another country can't catch us not looking. It's time for us to keep vigilant and remain at a steady pace with the rest of the world, to reassure that we are on even footing.
Brainard, J (2007). 50 Years After Sputnik, America Sees Itself in Another Science Race. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from chronicle.com Web site: http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/10/2007100401n.htm
Scholarly Journal:
The US Congress has freed up 43.3 billion dollars to be used for science and scientific education courses. The main idea behind this action is to keep the United States competitive in the global economy for years to come. The main topics for this spending will be math, science, engineering, technology education, and a "renewed commitment to basic research." Prior to this agreement, their was a sense of fighting over where to spend funding dollars. This agreement is essentially a compromise between the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Education. A great part of this compromise, is reassuring that highschool math and science teachers are certified. In 2002, 17 to 28 percent of public high school mathematics and science teachers lacked full certification in their field. In 1999, between 23 and 29 percent of public middle- and high-school mathematics and science teachers did not have a college major or minor in their teaching field, so making sure that our teachers were certified was a great cause for passing this money into funding. With this in mind, the money that has just passed into legislation includes two teacher scholorship programs. All of this will go to reassuring the security of our American Educational System.
Whenever you have the opportunity to reassure our education system and advance our cause of learning and educational commitment, its a good thing. I have no problem with this spending, amount or destination. It's a good cause and the fact that it is coming from our government is a good thing. Maybe this spending is to divert our attention from the war for a second or to allow themselves to be shown in a better light, but regardless it is a good thing. I fully support it.
Gropp, R (2007). Congress Advances Multiyear Science and Education Plan . Retrieved November 27, 2007, from Ebsco Web site: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=27&hid=104&sid=f0ac2093-809a-4d91-9c85-e8ee8c450c1f%40sessionmgr106
EDC 102 Fnl Prj Part I Eval - Greg